Thus spake Our Lord:We are not commanded not to judge; we are commanded to judge fairly: (1807) “in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”
(Aquinas II/II 60-2) *“Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice.” *What we are forbidden is judgment *"**which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart." *It is a mistake, however, to assume that a severe punishment cannot be just but must be the result of “bitterness of heart.” Once judged, justice demands punishment commensurate with the severity of the sin.
Ender
The word of man may not countermand it but the mind of man can certainly misunderstand it. That this interpretation is common doesn’t change the fact that it is nonetheless incorrect.Thus spake Our Lord: Judge not that ye be not judged.
Anything which stands against this is defective. Therefore what you see as standing against this is erroneously seen, or is indeed defective. This is the word of The Lord. The word of Man cannot countermand it.
You need to slow down and reconsider your position. This quote, which you use to make your point in #236, is the exact same quote I used in #233 that you rejected in #234.Or again according to Chrysostom, He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart.
No. As I have said over and over it is about justice. What you call judgmentalism is nothing more than a failure to render a just judgment. Our difference is over whether the death penalty can ever be considered just. My complaint with 2267 is that it never even asks the question, let alone answers it; this section cannot be considered the final word on a subject it doesn’t even address.However, this is not about judges, or judgement, it is really about judgementalism.
Ok,You need to slow down and reconsider your position. This quote, which you use to make your point in #236, is the exact same quote I used in #233 that you rejected in #234.
No. As I have said over and over it is about justice. What you call judgmentalism is nothing more than a failure to render a just judgment. Our difference is over whether the death penalty can ever be considered just. My complaint with 2267 is that it never even asks the question, let alone answers it; this section cannot be considered the final word on a subject it doesn’t even address.
Ender
Why do you make claims that you know you can’t prove?So what of killers?
The majority are either acts of passion, or insanity.
…
Prisoners will often tell you that drug addicts are more to be feared in jail than are convicted murderers.
No, but intentionally muddying the water by presenting personal fantasies as the actual state of things is going to just about guarantee that you won’t come up with any answer that address the situation as it really is.There are no simple answers.
The reason the punishment should fit the crime is because a sin incurs the debt of punishment. The greater the sin the higher the debt and the more severe the punishment must be in order to pay the bill. Forget capital punishment for a moment, this is true of all sin and all punishment.The essence of ‘making the punishment fit the crime’ is that the target of the policy must be rational, and certain of judgement.
I will say it again: deterrence is not an issue in a debate over justice. Whether or not a punishment deters is an argument completely separate from whether or not it is just.Strangely though, even against this best of targets, there is a high degree of recidavism, indicating that even amongst targets taking a second and third bite at the cherry, deterrance is not truely effective.
It is surely to be hoped that the criminal will repent of his sins, serve his punishment, and become a productive member of society on his release from prison. That this doesn’t always (usually?) happen doesn’t change the fact that, whether or not he repents, his punishment is the same. That is, crime X merits punishment X, crime Y merits punishment Y, and so on. This is only generally true of course as there are other factors involved that go to personal responsibility but the greater the sin the greater the punishment - whether or not the sinner repents. There is a debt to be paid and repentance does not pay it.The problem is that the best result seem to be counter intuitive, and contrary to atonement based ideas of justice.
There are no simple answers.
I agree that we should forget for the moment capital punishment. This will help the discussion, in as much as in general, we are talking about a rational target.[sign]
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano View Post
The essence of ‘making the punishment fit the crime’ is that the target of the policy must be rational, and certain of judgement.[/sign]
The reason the punishment should fit the crime is because a sin incurs the debt of punishment. The greater the sin the higher the debt and the more severe the punishment must be in order to pay the bill. Forget capital punishment for a moment, this is true of all sin and all punishment.
If deterrence is not an issue, then neither is punishment. Indeed, justice is irrelevant beyond that excessive punishment is to be deprecated. That is the limit of the Church mandate upon the state.[sign]
Strangely though, even against this best of targets, there is a high degree of recidivism, indicating that even amongst targets taking a second and third bite at the cherry, deterrence is not truly effective.[/sign]
I will say it again: deterrence is not an issue in a debate over justice. Whether or not a punishment deters is an argument completely separate from whether or not it is just.
[sign]
The problem is that the best result seem to be counter intuitive, and contrary to atonement based ideas of justice.
There are no simple answers.[/sign]
It is surely to be hoped that the criminal will repent of his sins, serve his punishment, and become a productive member of society on his release from prison. That this doesn’t always (usually?) happen doesn’t change the fact that, whether or not he repents, his punishment is the same. That is, crime X merits punishment X, crime Y merits punishment Y, and so on. This is only generally true of course as there are other factors involved that go to personal responsibility but the greater the sin the greater the punishment - whether or not the sinner repents. There is a debt to be paid and repentance does not pay it.
Yes, I agree that in an ideal world, that the offender should repent, and be reformed, even to be desirous of corrective punishment to purge his soul, but that is not part of the real world, nor is it any part of the Church’s mandate upon the state.Ender
I am appealing to Aquinas, multiple popes, and the catechism; which is the OT source?Now you are appealing to a form of justice which is in my belief, OT based. You also believe that the state is mandated to implement this form of justice.
No. There are many ways to protect society that are unjust; the Church requires justice first, not protection.The mandate from the Church, as I understand it is that the state will protect society. No more, and no less.
(2266) “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” The penalty *must *be proportional to the crime (that’s what the word duty means).That the punishment should be commensurate echoes ‘eye for eye’, but that requirement never was for tariff, but for limit.
The state has the *duty *to punish crimes irrespective of protection (see above)…If the state can protect society without punishment, that then is acceptable to the mandate …
Again, not so: 1901 “… authority belongs to the order established by God.” and 1903 “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.”… for the Church accepts that the state is a secular entity, unconcerned with spiritual, or even moral matters. The concern is then purely practical and economical.
Deterrence and protection are two of the four objectives of punishment and neither of them is the primary purpose.If deterrence is not an issue, then neither is punishment.
Ok, you appeal to commentators. I hold fast to the Gospel.I am appealing to Aquinas, multiple popes, and the catechism; which is the OT source?
No! the church requires protection FIRST, but without INJUSTICE.No. There are many ways to protect society that are unjust; the Church requires justice first, not protection.
You choose to be picky with some items, even to reject some.(2266) “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” The penalty *must *be proportional to the crime (that’s what the word duty means).
The state has the *duty *to punish crimes irrespective of protection (see above)…Again, not so: 1901 “… authority belongs to the order established by God.” and 1903 “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.”
Deterrence and protection are two of the four objectives of punishment and neither of them is the primary purpose.
The last two paragraphs are applicable only to the caliphate. They have no place in civilised society.Ender
You take the Protestant view that each person has the right to interpret the Gospels for himself; I take the Catholic view that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” (Dei verbum 10)Ok, you appeal to commentators. I hold fast to the Gospel.
Do not tell me what the Catholic Church says. Church doctrine is presented by the Magisterium and you have reduced them to the status of mere commentators. You cannot reject “commentators” on the one hand and then claim to believe what the “Church” says on the other. For the purpose of deciding doctrine they are one and the same.No! the church requires protection FIRST, but without INJUSTICE.
I am picky? What you agree with you call Church, what you disagree with you reject as merely the opinions of commentators. You freely interweave your personal interpretations with Church doctrine; I must conform my understanding to Church doctrine alone. Unlike you, there is nothing I have presented that is solely my interpretation.You choose to be picky with some items, even to reject some. I choose to interpret it the context of the Gospel. Where the commentator is saying ‘proportionate’, I, reading the Gospel, see a misunderstanding for ‘not disproportionate’
The source I quoted was the catechism as it was updated in 1997; it is what the Church believes today.The last two paragraphs are applicable only to the caliphate. They have no place in civilised society. Like it, or like it not, civilised society is secular. In the days of Aquinas, it was still considered that the Christian Caliphate was a good idea, but that is now buried, along with the divine right of kings, and the head of Charles I.
I find it ironic, and not a little amusing, that a non Catholic, using protestant arguments, provides a better support for the CCC than a self professed Catholic. Perhaps you considered JPII to have been a protestant too, for his arguments are clearly Gospel based.[sign]
Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
Ok, you appeal to commentators. I hold fast to the Gospel.[/sign]
You take the Protestant view that each person has the right to interpret the Gospels for himself; I take the Catholic view that “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” (Dei verbum 10)
Sorree! I was just giving the gist of what JPII said in EV, but then you seem to consider him to be a protestant and a heretic.[sign]
No! the church requires protection FIRST, but without INJUSTICE.[/sign]
Do not tell me what the Catholic Church says. Church doctrine is presented by the Magisterium and you have reduced them to the status of mere commentators. You cannot reject “commentators” on the one hand and then claim to believe what the “Church” says on the other. For the purpose of deciding doctrine they are one and the same.
You quote 2266 at me, but you reject 2267. You criticise me for interpreting ‘proportionate’ as ‘not disproportionate’ but fail to notice the usage of that word used in the negative in 2265[sign]
You choose to be picky with some items, even to reject some. I choose to interpret it the context of the Gospel. Where the commentator is saying ‘proportionate’, I, reading the Gospel, see a misunderstanding for ‘not disproportionate’[/sign]
I am picky? What you agree with you call Church, what you disagree with you reject as merely the opinions of commentators. You freely interweave your personal interpretations with Church doctrine; I must conform my understanding to Church doctrine alone. Unlike you, there is nothing I have presented that is solely my interpretation.
The source I quoted was the catechism as it was updated in 1997; it is what the Church believes today.
Yet it is what you do not believe.Ender
Here is a debunking of the aforementioned mount-bank:John Lott wrote a brief article in late December on the recent New Jersey action that eliminated the death penalty in that state:
IBDeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=282952624388536&type=right
Please, no name-calling.Here is a debunking of the aforementioned mount-bank:
timlambert.org/lott/
The Oxford Dictionary of Current English:Please, no name-calling.
johnrlott.blogspot.com/2007/12/merry-christmas.html#commentsHere is a debunking of the aforementioned mount-bank:
timlambert.org/lott/
The problem with internet blogs is they are no more reliable than meeting a random stranger on the street. Some lie, some don’t. Some are good, some bad. Nothing, however can be debunked in a blog.Here is a debunking of the aforementioned mount-bank:
timlambert.org/lott/
Methinks my lord doth protest too much.I just emailed John Lott and got back the following response:
The source that set up the link has continually put up false and doctored information about me. One link here goes through examples of false claims that Lambert has about me here:
timlambert.org/lott/
Unfortunately, it seems that 55% of a certain nation better support the conclusions of Herman than of Abraham, as witnessed by a certain incumbent.If you say something loud enough, and often enough, eventually the people will believe it.
Herman Goering.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln.